AN INTERESTING EMAIL

"I thought you may be interested to know that since yesterday I have had a raging fight with John Quiggin. Quiggin had the audacity to call Windschuttle a racist because of a book he is about to publish (or has published) on the White Australia policy. Quiggin hasn't read the book but is prepared to malign Windschuttle as a racist. I find this horrid. Although I haven't read Windschuttle's works I have noticed that leftoids accuse him of horrible things but I have not read anything anywhere directly refuting his work on Tasmanian aboriginals. In other words leftoids call him names etc. and think that is enough rather than attacking his work in a scholarly way. I took to Quiggin repeatedly, asking him how could he attack Windschuttle without reading his book. He then accused me of being a racist as well. I let him have it. I called him a Nazi and a second rate mind. He has now threatened me with legal action. I have never feared a thug like Quiggin so I encouraged him to go right ahead as I would be happy to see him in court. The man throws names and accusations around like they were balls. Honestly, I don't understand how someone like that could teach kids. This is a serious accusation to make against someone. I dare Quiggin to sue me and let the courts see how many people this animal has maligned in the past. I know of three already".

.

It seems that Quiggin can dish out the insults but can't take it in return: Very Leftist. Being an academic, Quiggin is careful with words and he denies that he called Windschuttle a racist. What he actually called Windschuttle was: "a consistent apologist for racism, happy to use racist arguments in support of his cause". But isn't an apologist for racism who uses racist arguments a racist? In common usage it certainly is. Given Windschuttle's many years of committment to Leftist causes, I am sure he has some antiracist past so I think Quiggin is on very shaky ground should Windschuttle sue him. It's typical of the Left, however, that they can only abuse Windschuttle, not refute his facts and arguments.

And it will come as no surprise that Quiggin shows very little grip on what he is talking about. Take this sentence: "I'll also be happy to publish comments from anyone seeking to use quibbles about the definition of "racism" to claim that a policy that openly defined itself in terms of skin colour was, in some sense, not racist." The policy concerned was in fact mainly designed to keep out the Chinese, whose skin colour falls within the range of Caucasian skin colour, so Quiggin's claim that it "openly defined itself in terms of skin colour" is sheer nonsense. All Quiggin seems to know is the popular name ("White Australia") for the policy.

And the slightest knowledge of Australian history would also have told Quiggin that it is perfectly easy to defend the policy on non-racist grounds. A major bastion of support for the policy was in fact the union movement and unionists supported it because it helped keep out cheap labour. Quiggin is a Professor of Economics. He should stick to what he knows.

Update:

Some comments by Prof. Quiggin on this post are to be found here

******************************